In Wash. Post, Will celebrates Pew finding that fewer Americans see solid evidence of global warming

Will: Pew poll finds “57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years.” From Will's November 8 Washington Post column:

Although the political and media drumbeat of alarm is incessant, a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years. Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry. Two reasons are:

They are worried about their wages, which will not be improved by clobbering a weak economy with the costs of a cap-and-trade carbon-reduction regime. And climate doomsayers are learning the wages of crying “Wolf!”

In 2005, global warming worriers warned, as they tend to do after all adverse or anomalous environmental events, that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming and foreshadowed an increase in the number and destructiveness of hurricanes. As this year's Atlantic hurricane season ends, only three hurricanes have formed -- half the average of the past 50 years -- and none has hit the United States. [11/8/09]

Wash. Post has repeatedly allowed Will to forward global warming misinformation

Will claimed “evidence” of climate change is “elusive.” In an October 1 Washington Post column, Will claimed that “evidence” of climate change is “elusive” and that scientists are overstating the threat of warming when they say -- in the words of a September 21 New York Times article Will criticized -- that a recent “plateau” in temperatures has “no bearing” on the long-term warming trend. In fact, scientists routinely present strong evidence of long-term warming and its consequences -- including a September 2009 United Nations report Will himself cited that says “rapid environmental change is underway with the pace and the scale of climate change accelerating.” [10/1/09]

Will falsely cited U.N. in criticizing “cataclysmic warning” that planet will warm 6.3 degrees. In the same October 1 Post column, while criticizing "[w]arnings about cataclysmic warming," Will asserted, “A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions” [italics in original]. In fact -- as the September 25 Washington Post article Will linked to makes clear -- a coalition of researchers in the United States, including the Sustainability Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ventana Systems, and Robert Corell, who the article stated “chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings,” established that figure, not the U.N. [10/1/09]

Will misused sea ice data in February 15 column. In his February 15 Washington Post column, Will suggested that Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) data on Arctic sea ice undermine the case for the existence of “man-made global warming.” In response, the ACRC reportedly stated:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

Doubling down, Will misused sea ice data again. In a February 27 column, Will falsely claimed that in his February 15 column, he “accurately reported” on the contents of an ACRC document. In fact, the document he cited rebutted the very argument he was making: The ACRC document that Will relied on actually stated that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models. In the words of TPM Muckraker's Zachary Roth, Will's February 27 column “amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother." On April 6, NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released new data on Arctic sea ice levels that further discredited Will's statements. [2/27/09]

Will criticized for “misrepresentation of the data” after distorting World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) statistics about global temperatures. Will wrote in his April 2 column that "[r]educing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the WMO, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998." Will presented the WMO data as evidence that global warming may not be occurring despite the fact that WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud criticized him for similarly writing in his February 15 column that according to the organization, “there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.” Jarraud called Will's February 15 assertion “a misrepresentation of the data and of scientific knowledge.” [4/2/09]

Will columns criticized by Post colleagues. Will's global warming columns have also recently been criticized by Washington Post editorial board member and cartoonist Tom Toles, Post weather columnist Andrew Freedman, and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander. His fellow editorial columnist Eugene Robinson also said that Will “cross[ed] the line” in spreading global warming misinformation.

Post editorial page editor defended Will

Post has not corrected any of these columns. Despite the criticism of the Post ombudsman and other Post colleagues, as of November 9, Will's February 15, February 27, April 2, and October 1 columns do not contain any corrections, clarifications, or notes addressing the misinformation he has spread.

Indeed, Post editorial page editor reportedly defended Will's January column on sea ice data. The Columbia Journalism Review posted a piece on February 26 featuring quotes from Washington Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt defending Will's February 15 column:

“If you want to start telling me that columnists can't make inferences which you disagree with -- and, you know, they want to run a campaign online to pressure newspapers into suppressing minority views on this subject-I think that's really inappropriate. It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him.” [2/26/09]